Loading...
10OctoberBOA __ v: �►Q� _.moi,. �, 14.',;1 .'•... • ;' �' MINUTES �-' !77S RANDOLPH COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 4, 1988 There was a meeting of the Randolph County Board of Adjustment on Tuesday, October 4, 1988, at 7 :00 p.m. , in Courtroom B, Randolph County Courthouse, 145 Worth Street, Asheboro, North Carolina . 1 . Chairman Doyle Stout called to order the Randolph County Board of Adjustment meeting at 7 : 00 p.m. 2 . Hal Johnson, Planning Director, called roll of the members: Doyle Stout, Chairman, present; Lynden Craven, Vice Chairman, present; Ray Farlow, pre- sent; Charles Adams, present; Guy Troy, present; Bill Dorsett , present; Arlie Culp, Alternate, present (substituting for resigned member Tal Harrison. 3 . Chairman Stout asked for a motion to approve the Minutes for the September 27 , 1988, Board of Adjustment meeting. Charles Adams made the motion, seconded by Guy Troy, to approve the Minutes of September 27th. The motion passed. 4 . Hal Johnson reviewed with the Board the case on the agenda: Proposed Development - WOODFIELD ACRES SUBDIVISION; Providence Township; SR 2114; 372.78 acres. Herman K. McDowell & W. Reid Kearns - Developers. 5. Chairman Stout asked the Board for discussion concerning the case and stated that all Conclusions would be based on Findings of Fact. Guy Troy noted that one of the issues the Board must consider is the request that it be considered a pre existing, non conforming use; but the Board heard several arguments (both for and against) that had no bearing on the Board' s decision. Troy stated that also there was no changes in the zoning district of this are before or after September 6, 1988. Troy added that he was concerned that the Board has not received any evidence of an option, between the developers and the owner , of the property. Troy stated that the Board had asked for this information during the September 27 , 1988 public hearing. Bill Dorsett stated that the expenses that were incurred (by the developers) were done so in a preliminary manner, that these expenses were necessary to bring a preliminary subdivision plat before the Board. Dorsett stated that no evidence was offered that showed any added amount of expenses were incurred. Dorsett added that the developers did not challenge the changes made to the County Zoning Ordinance. Dorsett also said that because a copy of the option contract was not presented to the Board, that the Board would have to assume that no money was given for the contract. Guy Troy stated that there has been no development on this property either before or since the changes October 4, 1988 Page 1 in the Zoning Ordinance, that the property is still only farmland. Bill Dorsett stated that the developers are not the owners of the property, and they (the developers) have failed to show any peculiar hardship. Dorsett said the Board has in no way stopped the applicants from developing the property and that the dove- lopers could still come before the Planning Board and request this type of development. Dorsett added that the Board had been given an appeal and an amendment to the appeal that accussed the Planning Director of faulting in area outside of his responsibility. 6. Hal Johnson, Planning Director, gave a summary of Findings of Fact . A: Prior to September 6, 1988, the property was zoned "Residential Agricultural" . After September 6, 1988, the property was still zoned "Residential Agricultural" . All deve- lopers of new major subdivisions were required to petition to appropriate zoning districts. B: The developers do not own the property. C: At the Planning Board meeting on June 7, a number of concerns were expressed by persons present. The Planning Board did not deny the subdivision petition, but delayed until further study could be taken in order to investigate these concerns. D: On July 11, 1988, County Director of Planning did not state that the developers were in full compliance with all County requirements . E: No evidence was presented that the developers paid any deposit in consideration for the option contract. Many of the expenditures made were made in order for County approval. F: The Petitioners do not own the property and no County Planning Board approval has been obtained. G: The Developers said at public hearing that they did not challenge the correctness of zoning changes made by the Board of Commis- sioners on September 6, 1988- H: Developers presented no evidence that they would suffer unnecessary hardship in they complied with the Ordinance. I : Developers presented no facts to show that the new zoning regulations would prohibit them to develop the subdivision as they desired. The Developers did not present any evidence as to why they could not resubmit their plans for a manufactured housing subdivision under current County Zoning regulations. J: No hardship was experienced by the Developers that was peculiar to their property. K: No development of any type was currently on the property other than farming. L: Evidence introduced by the developers relative to soils, topography, and septic tanks may be relevant to the Board of Adjustment as con- siders the developers request. October 4, 1988 Page 2 M: Preliminary Plat approval is the responsi- bility of the Planning Board. 7 . Guy Troy made the motion, based on the Findings of Fact presented at public hearing, that it should be the Board' s Conclusion that there is no pre existing, non-conforming use as contended by the applicants. Thergfore , it is Ordered that the decision of the Director of Planning & Zoning requiring that the property be located in the appropriate Zoning District be Affiimgd . Lynden Craven seconded the motion . Hal Johnson, Planning Director, called roll for a vote on the motion: Doyle Stout, Chairman, with the motion; Lynden Craven, Vice Chairman, with the motion; Bill Dorsett, with the motion; Guy Troy, with the motion; Ray Farlow, with the motion; Charles Adams, present; and Arlie Culp, with the motion. The request was unanimously denied. Hal Johnson explained to the applicants that they would be presented with a written document of the Order of the Board of Adjustment. Johnson stated that if the applicants were dissatisfied with the decision made by the Board of Adjustment, they would have thirty (30) days to appeal the decision to a higher court . 8. The Board of Adjustment meeting adjourned at 7 :14 p.m. RANDOLPH COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Planning Di ector Date S421=-1-etary 1p'4y SIP 1779 October 4, 1988 Page 3